Good piece. I get impatient with 'There's nothing wrong with the ideology! People are just doing it wrong!' whether it's communism, Sharia, intersectionality whatever.' Benign interpretations of almost anything can & do exist but the reality of what a thing is in practice mattershttps://twitter.com/CampbellSocProf/status/975076836236390401 …
-
-
I’d even go so far as to say that intesectionality is tainted by in-group out-group thinking from the get go. I’m not sure Kimberly Crenshaw’s motives were even as altruistic as Marx’s. (Don’t really know her history enough to say.)
-
Is Crenshaw still alive? If so can’t she see that her prediction of increased harmony has failed iserably?
-
Yes. She went on to do critical race theory. She now feels that people have taken her intersectionality in a direction it was never meant to go but she stands by origins
-
Glad to hear that she knows she’s been distorted at least.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
"When you want to understand people's motivations for their actions study the consequences of their actions."
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I mean, normally I'd agree with you on these things, but there IS a point. Otherwise there's no point to discussing ideology at all. Ideologies aren't only defined by how people interpret them in action. They're still defined by the 'ideal' part of them. Both warrant considering.
-
Without understanding the ideals behind them and what they mean, we only get half of the picture regarding how things like Communism or intersectionality go to some very dark places when put into practice. Those ideals matter because they're what brings in external support.
-
Nobody would be talking about Intersectionality today if it didn't sound like a good idea on paper. We wouldn't have anyone defending communism if the ideology straight up said 'people are going to starve to death and you're going to need to commit genocide."
-
There is no perfect ideological solution to the human condition. If we just condense them all down into 'this is how they've played out in reality' then we lose any kind of forward-thinking momentum in how to fix deeply flawed ideologies without simply waging ideological war.
-
Ideally, we would take the best aspects of all our flawed socioeconomic philosophies and begin to combine them into something which works on both an ideological and practical level. Cherry picking the best ideas, regardless of their point of origin.
-
I'm not saying we should necessarily even uphold the ideal as being equal to the enacted historical precedent... but I am saying that there is a point in saying 'X philosophy doesn't actually advocate for Y'. It enables the conversation of 'Can we fix this? Can we re-purpose it?'
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.